The results of the siege of Fallujah

Indeed, as the State Department was pressuring Al Jazeera to limit anti-American content, it was offering the station its own officials for interviews. Colin Powell, Donald Rumsfeld, and Condolezza Rice all appeared on Al Jazeera, as did Christopher Ross, a former American ambassador to Syria who speaks relatively fluent Arabic. The Americans were not alone. British Prime Minister Tony Blair also made his case for "dismantling the network of international terrorism" directly to Al Jazeera viewers.

If American officials were to claim that Al Jazeera is against them, their Middle Eastern counterparts likely would reply, "Join the club." According to Yousef Al Shouly, a Palestinian senior producer for Al Jazeera, Western leaders are now absorbing the lesson that Arab heads of state learned over the past five years: "Use Al Jazeera to spread your views; use Al Jazeera to your own benefit." When there is controversy in a country, he says, his station allows both "the government and the opposition to give their point of view. Al Jazeera gives both sides a chance. Al Jazeera has not changed its policy. Governments have changed their policy" to adapt to the network, he says.

Before Al Jazeera began broadcasting in 1996, Arab leaders were accustomed to state-owned media that did not question the status quo. In the choice between pleasing governments or pleasing viewers, Al Jazeera chose the latter. There's hardly an Arab government that the station has not offended. Al Jazeera's staff say the Qatari foreign ministry has received more than 400 complaints.

I find it odd no one has posted the pictures of the 4 Americans these people killed and then desecrated them by dragging their corpses through the streets and hanging them from a bridge.

It amazing how quickly some forget.

You are aware that CNN, The NY TImes, the Wash Post, and even Penthouse Magazine have had reporters inside the AQ camps for months at a time, aren't you?
After 911? Can you prove it?

I also notice that in your selective highlighting you ignored this:

Quote:

Al-Jazeera said it had withheld the interview because it did not want to be seen as a mouthpiece for Bin Laden.

Sort of invalidates your thesis, no?
No. It proves they are worried about the accurate perception most of the world has of them. They were hiding the fact that they had achieved such close access to Bin Laden, and they were protecting him from further investigation using the tape. And protecting themselves as aiders and abettors.

As for this question:

Quote:

(*Is that what their sermons look like?)

The answer is: what do "Christian sermons" look like? there is no uniform manner of preaching in Islam either. Certainly Fundamentalist ISlam, like Fundamentalist Christianity, teaches hate and intolerance. I find it dissapointing that our administration adheres to such a philosophy. I have always maintained that the far right, and AQ have much in common.
I think you have much more in common with AQ than the far right. You certainly defend them. You don't see the far right doing that.

After 911? Can you prove it?

No. It proves they are worried about the accurate perception most of the world has of them. They were hiding the fact that they had achieved such close access to Bin Laden, and they were protecting him from further investigation using the tape. And protecting themselves as aiders and abettors.

I think you have much more in common with AQ than the far right. You certainly defend them. You don't see the far right doing that.

Thank you for the link. It was new information.

But that only means they aren't 100% corrupt. I never said they were. I like what they are doing in the area of openness, women's issues and showing sides of issues the oppressed, mind-controlled masses in the ME haven't been able to get--

Within the bounds of the AJ/Bin Laden discussion, however, I do believe at different times since the build-up, they have shone a favorable spotlight on BL and his cause, and have aided him in his work.

I still am glad for the link.

Within the bounds of the AJ/Bin Laden discussion, however, I do believe at different times since the build-up, they have shone a favorable spotlight on BL and his cause, and have aided him in his work.

I still am glad for the link.

That is interesting -I mean the "should have given info about where Bin-Laden was" thing (I have a lot of time for Al-Jazeera - and I agree that their survival is very important for the ME) - what are the ethics of western journalism re interviewing people accused of a crime in hiding? I know journalists here, and in the US, have gone to prison for protecting their sources - and I am sure I have seen interviews of people in hiding....

1) Why would a news org lie about whether or not they'd conducted an interview?

2) I think it is to protect him from the world knowing Bush was correct in his statement that Bin Laden strives to strip us of our freedoms, as quoted here (**).